A question for those opposed to gay marriage.

[IIamaKing]

So recently a federal judge struck down a Utah law outlawing gay marriage in that state. Those on the right (of whom I typically align with) shout out saying that its not up to the feds to govern states affairs.

So my question is this,
If a bunch of gays moved to a state, for the example, California and lobbied to outlaw straight marriage and won would you support that state's decision?

I mean it is the states right correct? Just as it is their right to outlaw gay marriage.

[Deleted]

I think it is messed up how you have so many different conflicting laws within the same Country, something that is fine and legal in one state will get you a prison sentence if you cross an imaginary border.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

So recently a federal judge struck down a Utah law outlawing gay marriage in that state. Those on the right (of whom I typically align with) shout out saying that its not up to the feds to govern states affairs.

So my question is this,
If a bunch of gays moved to a state, for the example, California and lobbied to outlaw straight marriage and won would you support that state's decision?

I mean it is the states right correct? Just as it is their right to outlaw gay marriage.

I can guarantee if it happened, there would be a lot of outrage.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

I think it is messed up how you have so many different conflicting laws within the same Country, something that is fine and legal in one state will get you a prison sentence if you cross an imaginary border.

And even then it's still possible to get busted for it on a federal level if you're in that safe imaginary border.

[slime]

So recently a federal judge struck down a Utah law outlawing gay marriage in that state. Those on the right (of whom I typically align with) shout out saying that its not up to the feds to govern states affairs.

So my question is this,
If a bunch of gays moved to a state, for the example, California and lobbied to outlaw straight marriage and won would you support that state's decision?

I mean it is the states right correct? Just as it is their right to outlaw gay marriage.

I don't think there is a state with enough gays to lobby something like that. Politician still needs to go with what will get him re-elected. Maybe if there was a state where the population is like 40% gay could do something like that.

But let me be frank, it is not in the best interest of the gays to make this an us vs. them issue, not unless they want it to go back to how it was before and move back into the closet.

[THE Bigzoman]

If you can accomplish such a feat, I will live with it because it probably took a lot of effort to do so.

[Zalavaaris]

Why would a demographic that is fighting for marriage equality want to ban hetero-sexual marriage again?

[TZucchini]

I think it is messed up how you have so many different conflicting laws within the same Country, something that is fine and legal in one state will get you a prison sentence if you cross an imaginary border.

It makes a great deal of sense in regard to certain laws, and doesn't make sense in regard to others. For example, a border state like Arizona might need tighter immigration laws than Kansas. Certain problems effect certain states infinitely more, and thus, more laws are deemed necessary.

[Halicia]

I'm against the government usurping religious authority and defining what marriage is. If they want to be the arbiter of civil union contracts, cool... but the separation of church and state should mean that they have NO BUSINESS in marriages. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

[Tradewind]

I'm against the government usurping religious authority and defining what marriage is. If they want to be the arbiter of civil union contracts, cool... but the separation of church and state should mean that they have NO BUSINESS in marriages. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

Can we be against religious authority usurping civil rights at the same time?

[Wells]

I'm against the government usurping religious authority and defining what marriage is. If they want to be the arbiter of civil union contracts, cool... but the separation of church and state should mean that they have NO BUSINESS in marriages. Gay, Straight, or otherwise.

So the court was right to strike the ban down?

[DEATHETERNAL]

If by "outlaw" you mean simply to treat it as if it doesn't exist as is done with "gay marriage", then yes. I support an end to government involvement in marriage completely (no benefits, no added rights, no acknowledgement/validation of existence, no nothing), so that is precisely what I want everywhere. There is no need, much less a pressing need, for governmental to be involved in marriage at all for anyone.

[Wells]

How do you think things like child custody are going to work if government isn't involved in marriage?

[Tradewind]

How do you think things like child custody are going to work if government isn't involved in marriage?

I was raised by wolves, gubbermint can't control dat!

[DEATHETERNAL]

How do you think things like child custody are going to work if government isn't involved in marriage?

By contract signed by the two (yeah there could be more than two if there is some kind of surrogate mother stupidity, but you know what I mean) individuals. If no contract exists, the mother has first right. Simple as that.

[Wells]

By contract signed by the two individuals. If no contract exists, the mother has first right. Simple as that.

Contracts require government and are the purview of government.

[purebalance]

I think it is messed up how you have so many different conflicting laws within the same Country, something that is fine and legal in one state will get you a prison sentence if you cross an imaginary border.

It's not illegal in different states to my knowledge just not recognized but it is now recognized by the federal government which means other than state reasons if you get gay married in DC and live in VA for example, you will get all federal benefits of being married but no Virginia benefits.

[IIamaKing]

Why would a demographic that is fighting for marriage equality want to ban hetero-sexual marriage again?

I fear you are missing my point, The point is that there would be mass outrage at a thing the anti-gays have supported throughout, states rights.
Its to point at the hypocrisy the right has on this issue. Has nothing to do with freedom or states rights it has everything to do with not allowing actions groups find gross.

Also those saying it would never happen, Yeh I know its called a hypothetical, a thought exercise for those who scream

"STATES RIGHTS!!!"

[Halicia]

Can we be against religious authority usurping civil rights at the same time?

What 'civil rights' has a religious authority usurped in the US ? (outside of Utah, but that's cause the religious authority IS the state)

[Wells]

It's not illegal in different states to my knowledge just not recognized but it is now recognized by the federal government which means other than state reasons if you get gay married in DC and live in VA for example, you will get all federal benefits of being married but no Virginia benefits.

This isn't going to fly for long though. You're going to start seeing a lot of suits based on the full faith and credit clause here.